RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?

Margaret Wasserman <> Tue, 20 July 2004 12:58 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16489 for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmu8v-0002V0-2n; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:54:49 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmtrV-000562-O2 for; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:36:49 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14923 for <>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:36:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bmtrd-0007gk-B0 for; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:36:58 -0400
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 115115; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:34:00 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0602045bbd22bffe9954@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:32:33 -0400
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <>,
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

At 12:06 PM +0200 7/20/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>  - Status of the "Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed
>>    Objects" draft
>>         GOALS:  Technical review & decision about how/if to
>>                 move forward
>I'd reather change "Technical review" into something aka "Come to
>resolution about the one oustanding issue."
>This debate has been going on for I don't know how long now.

I agree, and your suggestion sounds reasonable to me.

If we can close on the one issue with the draft, Dan Romascanu (who 
has already volunteered) can do a thorough review and we can get this 
document published as a sponsored individual submission without the 
need for a WG re-charter, etc.  It's only a couple of objects, after 

>We better decide which solution we want.
>I would URGE everyone who has comments/concerns about a fix/resolution of
>the issue to SEND their proposal to the mailing list (well) BEFORE the
>SanDiego meeting, so we can discuss it and try to come to consensus.

I'll make the same plea for any remaining issues with the Entity 
State MIB.  Personally, I hope that we will leave San Diego with 

     (1) A set of well-defined edits that are required before we send 
the Entity State MIB to the IESG.


     (2) A decision not to proceed with the Entity State MIB at all.

We've spent _far_ to long nibbling at this MIB, and we should either 
ship it or kill it, IMO.

As I think I've said on this list before, it is heavily frowned upon 
for an IESG member to chair a regular WG, and I only continued as 
chair because we were supposed to finish in a few months.  That was 
over a year ago!  No one else has volunteered to run the group, and 
(as a working group, not as individual people) I think we are 
suffering classic signs of having outlived our own usefulness.  So 
let's finish up (one way or the other) and close down.


Entmib mailing list